Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38291599›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal2024

Legacy benefits of blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular events are primarily mediated by improved blood pressure variability: the ASCOT trial.

Ajay Gupta, William N Whiteley, Thomas Godec, Somayeh Rostamian, Cono Ariti, Judith Mackay, Andrew Whitehouse, Leila Janani, Neil R Poulter, Peter S Sever and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
17.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Asian expert consensus on high-quality hypertension management.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Blood Pressure Variability (BPV): What Clinicians Need to Know a 2025 Expert Consensus Report Endorsed by the Egyptian Society of Cardiology.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Blood pressure variability: a review.Journal of hypertension · 2025
    Review
  20. Impact of Variability in Blood Pressure and Heart Rate on Beta-Blocker Adherence.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ajay GuptaWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5807-8503
William N WhiteleyCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4816-8991
Thomas GodecWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
Somayeh RostamianNational Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Room 333, ICTEM Building, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK.
Cono AritiNational Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Room 333, ICTEM Building, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK.
Judith MackayNational Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Room 333, ICTEM Building, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK.
Andrew WhitehouseNational Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Room 333, ICTEM Building, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK.
Leila JananiClinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, UK.
Neil R PoulterSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6292-997X
Peter S SeverNational Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Room 333, ICTEM Building, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0421-2409
ASCOT-10 Investigators
Imperial College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Biomedical Research Centre AwardImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustImperial College LondonNational Institute for Health Research Senior InvestigatorPfizer
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsVisit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment.

methodsEight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes.

resultsUsing BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.

conclusionsSystolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period.

Indexed as

AtenololHypertensionAmlodipineAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureHumansRisk FactorsAmlodipineAntihypertensive AgentsAtenololASCOTBlood pressure variabilityCardiovascular events

Identifiers

PMID38291599
PMCPMC10984564
OpenAlexW4391377629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.